Case 3310914/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Laura Fortunato v The Chancellor, Masters, Scholars of the University of Oxford — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310914/2023
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Non
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms A Brown, Ms H Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Laura Fortunato
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that complaints withdrawn by the Claimant during the hearing were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal further recorded that the Claimant's remaining complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. The listed remedy hearing dates of 9 and 10 March 2026 were vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Short judgment record states that complaints withdrawn during the hearing were dismissed upon withdrawal, and remaining complaints were not well founded and dismissed; it does not identify which listed claims were withdrawn. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Short judgment record states that complaints withdrawn during the hearing were dismissed upon withdrawal, and remaining complaints were not well founded and dismissed; it does not identify which listed claims were withdrawn. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Short judgment record states that complaints withdrawn during the hearing were dismissed upon withdrawal, and remaining complaints were not well founded and dismissed; it does not identify which listed claims were withdrawn. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Short judgment record states that complaints withdrawn during the hearing were dismissed upon withdrawal, and remaining complaints were not well founded and dismissed; it does not identify which listed claims were withdrawn. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.